Luke v. State
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Indictment for forgery; from Irwin superior court — Judge Eve. August 24, 1920.
1Opinion of the CourtBloodworth, J.
Grounds 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 of the amendment to the motion for a new trial are but amplifications of the general grounds.
1. Ground 5 complains that certain evidence was erroneously allowed to go to the jury. This testimony, which consisted of several sentences, was objected to en bloc, and at least a portion of it was admissible. “ Where evidence is offered and objected to, and a portion thereof is admissible and a part objectionable, *176unless the illegal portion is specified and properly objected to, the whole will be admitted. ” City of Atlanta v. Sciple, 19 Ga. App. 694 (3), 698 (92 S. E. 28),…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hagar v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
- Bowen v. Smith-Hall Grocery Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- City of Atlanta v. ScipleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1917
- Jordan v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Johnson v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Bennett v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1934
- Adams v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Citizens Banking Co. v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Scott v. ScottCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Willis v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.